>a >fucking >ramp Sovietcucks BTFO

>>31909429

I know this is a meme bait thread, but there's nothing wrong with ramps given the doctrine and requirements are right (program, carrier availability, crewing, maintenance, aircraft etc).

File: 1477344056769.jpg (35KB, 377x325px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 377x325px

>>31909598
>there's nothing wrong with ramps

Watch it Boris

>>31909695

I'm not Russian.

File: 1476955360613.gif (16KB, 800x518px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 800x518px

>>31909695
Catapult is needed only for heavy AWACS planes.

File: 1474680240942.png (172KB, 396x385px) Image search: [Google]

172KB, 396x385px

>>31909706
Exactly what a dirty Russian would say.

File: paulie and chris.png (1MB, 1564x820px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1564x820px

>>31909695

>Russians aren't all bad
>How 'bout the Cuban Missile Crisis? cocksuckers moved nuclear warheads into Cuba, pointed 'em right at us.
>That was real? I saw that movie, I thought
it was bullshit.

>>31909711

and for launching conventional fighter or attack aircraft with a decent amount of fuel and weapons

/k/ has become such a pathetic parody of itself

File: 1477915581220.png (232KB, 500x316px) Image search: [Google]

232KB, 500x316px

>>31910088

...Just like Aircraft Carriers...

>>31910088

That's how it all began anon. First it was an anime imageboard, then a parody of an imageboard, then the parody of a parody of an imageboard.

Soon enough some great tidal wave of newfags will turn us further along the great circle of neverending shit on and on until the heat death of the universe.

Enjoy your stay.

>>31909966
>and for launching conventional fighter or attack aircraft with a decent amount of fuel and weapons
Which is bullshit, because conventional fighter or attack aircraft will not have perfect angle of attack and that will limit their amount of fuel and weapons.

I'm new here... But who cares?

File: 1432653442837.png (535KB, 484x544px) Image search: [Google]

535KB, 484x544px

>>31912387

>cats limit fuel and weapons compared with a ramp

sure thing ivan

that powerful steam powered catapult capable of launching big fat hawkeyes( that could never take off from a ramp carrier in 1000 years) in no way increases the maximum take-off weight of fighter attack aircraft

2 kopeks have been added to your account

>>31912602

I should add you are right about the angle of attack thing but you failed to account for the fact that catapult carriers have catapults which catapult things with extreme force

said catapults allow much heavier take-off weights allowing hawkeyes, COD etc. but also allowing f/a-18s to take off with weapon and fuel loadouts that russian naval aviators could never imagine in their wildest vodka dreams(add in buddy refueling or look at previous generations of american carrier aircraft like the Prowler, A-5, F-14 etc. and the gap in range and weapon loadouts becomes even more one sided)

>>31910713
how many layers of irony are we in?

>>31912602
>sure thing ivan
You can continue to ignore proof that is already posted in this thread as long as you want, but it will not change facts. Aerodynamic is a cruel bitch.

File: 1444506488121.png (84KB, 587x685px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 587x685px

>>31912773

see >>31912724

http://i.4cdn.org/wsg/1478397616113.webm

your "proof" is for a catapultless flat-deck vs ramp

the day the russians get a fixed wing big radome AWACs aircraft off the deck of that tugboat powered shitpile is the day they can lecture about take-off weight

File: 1469707213813.jpg (283KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

283KB, 1200x800px

>>31912724
>f/a-18s to take off with weapon and fuel loadouts that russian naval aviators could never imagine in their wildest vodka dreams
>The tests occurred during Follow-On Sea Trials aboard the USS HARRY S. TRUMAN (CVN 75) between March 3 and 12, 1999.
>Seventeen launches were conducted with aircraft F1 and F2 in FULL flaps configuration
at four gross weights, two in full non-afterburner thrust and two in full afterburner thrust.
>Results showed that the F/A-18E/F met the Specification for launch from the
decks of existing U.S. Navy aircraft carriers. The non-afterburner launches above 58,000
pounds were limited by longitudinal acceleration. The afterburner launches up to the
maximum gross weight of 66,000 pounds were limited by 10 feet sink-off-of-the-bow.
66,000 pounds is a limit to F\A-18. 29,93 tonnes. J-15 has proofed take off mass of 32 tonnes. Which is, automatically, can be projected to Su-33s. And note, that Suchois have internal fuel storage that US naval aviators could never imagine in their wildest whiskey dreams. You should count missiles on pods.

>>31913110
I'm honestly gonna need you to explain this graph to me, because I can't tell what it's trying to tell me. Can you point out to me where it states a take off mass of 32 tons? I can see the lines marked where that info should be, but the units don't make any sense to me and the numbers don't match up with that either. Is the 32 tons figure supposed to match up with the purple line? I'm honestly confused, so if you can read chinese that would be helpful.

A fucking ramp
Not nuclear powered

How can commies even compete?

>>31909429

The real point of contention isn't the ramp. It's STOBAR in general.

Modern STOVL at least is designed with good payloads in mind from the F-35B, but STOBAR is unbelievably shit tier. It's the worst of both worlds. It has both the lesser launch (even less so than STOVL) and has the airframe wracking controlled crash without the added benefits CATOBAR gives to make it worth it.

File: lex.webm (3MB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 640x360px

>carriers without naval artillery

Remember to give link:
"F/A-18E/F Catapult Minimum End Airspeed Testing"

http://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_gradthes/2136/

>>31913110

an extra 2k kilos of fuel vs air to air or buddy refueling is pretty easy choice especially when you can reduce take-off fuel load for extra weapon load then fill up mid-air

as for Su-33/J-15 have a 32,000kg take-off weight chinese figures aren't exactly reliable especially when they appear to claim RN harriers achieving 32,800kg take-off weight

the day I see a harrier launching with the similar max weight to an F-14(as the that chink graph appears to claim) is the day i'll believe chinese numbers

File: Su-33 full loadout.webm (241KB, 1280x1080px) Image search: [Google]

241KB, 1280x1080px

>>31913249
http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/sreply/317141/Slowest-possible-STOBAR-carrier#.WB6bRzWg-FQ
Full translation here, I suppose.
I'm using Chinese source just because people here don't trust to Russian sources, which claimed same thing for a long time.

>>31909711
That's a harrier graph anon, that's a STOVL aircraft not a tradtional fixed wing carrier aircraft like the 33, 29K, 18E, ect

>>31909429
Anyone saying ramps are a good idea for carrier aviation is either relying on a STOVL aircraft or trying to justify the inability to build a steam catapult system.

Hell even Russians and the Chinese state they want to move to a CATOBAR design for their next gen carriers, it's literally the best way to launch fighters with decent payloads or fuel.

Not to mention AWACS, Tanker birds, and EW aircraft.

>>31913373
>the day I see a harrier launching
Why even live, if you'll never see a harrier launching from carrier?

It's not a fucking carrier you fucking retards, how many times do we have to go through this? It's a missile cruiser with fighters.

>>31913373

oh wait looking at the full translation rather than that photo it seems like they are only using RN ramp height as a counter example and that graph is about the Su-33

also arguing which is more reliable chink or soviet sources seems like a moot point given both have about an equal reputation for inflating numbers

>>31913459
This gentlemen gets it.

>>31913459
why not just build a sub instead

>>31913466
Welp, maximum AA configuration of Su-33 is around 30 tonnes and 12 missiles. F/A-18 just can't have so mush missiles. and it's not about "ramp vs catapult".

>>31913506
Welll the Superbug can but the Legacy bug cant.

>>31913459
They ruined missile launchers in 90th by accident. It's very unlikely that they are operational now.

>>31913484
Because they did not want a sub, they wanted a cruiser with fighters. End of.

>>31913517
They are. There's a photo of dudes loading them before the current trip to Syria.

>>31913506

is the 12 missile loadout with dinky little R60Ms? because I know the russians can stack multiple IR missiles to a single pylon

Different doctrines

Kuznetsov with a ramp is still ok for its defensive purposes. It can launch fighters in a faster way for the defense of bastions. The range is acceptable since the Kuz is only patrolling a set area. AWACS duty can be handed over to land based planes and it also has AEW helicopters for short range AWACS duty.
The decision for the Ulyanovsk catapults was because of non bastion regions like Cuba where it is far from the mainland.

The American catapult is based on Power Projection which is an SJW term for offensive strikes against the small people that can't defend themselves. They need the catapults to launch bigger planes so they can see if the enemy is making any plans of defending themselves.

Hey guys.
Maybe this is a stupid question.
But why can't we build a carrier that has a catapult that shoots planes up a ramp? Best of both worlds.

>>31914312
there are no positives to a ramp.

>>31914312
That would give credence that Russia has done something good. We will never allow that, it will make us look bad.

>>31914338

The US steals Russian ideas all the time when they are good. The difference is that the ramp is not a good idea. It is not worth it to steal.

>>31914312
Curving the catapult rails would complicate shit greatly for zero gains. The cat can already impart enough velocity that if you can't fly off a straight cat then you can't maintain straight and level flight at all.

File: obi wan.jpg (11KB, 356x297px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 356x297px

>>31914218
TIL force projection is an SJW term..

>>31914429
>The difference is that the ramp is not a good idea.
Err. how about reducing the amount of stress on the airframe from launching just with a cat then? Plus there is rather less need to go full afterburner when landing just about empty, reducing stress on the airframe as well.

>>31914504
Cat launch stresses are within tolerances and easily compensated for. Better to make more durable aircraft then a more complicated and fragile carrier.

>>31909429
What's the problem with ramps, again? I'm a gun person who knows next to nothing about ships

File: e_2c_hawkeye-wide[1].jpg (201KB, 1920x1200px) Image search: [Google]

201KB, 1920x1200px

>>31914504

You see this?

This is an E-2 Hawkeye. This is how the carrier groups knows if trouble is headed their way. You can't launch this type of plane from a ramp.

>>31914564
Compared to using a powered catapult to launch aircraft, ramps require the aircraft to have a higher thrust-to-weight ratio. This limits fuel and weapons loads on fighter aircraft and means some kinds of heavy aircraft can't be launched at all.

>>31914564
Nothing.

Just simple 'If it is not what we do then it is not worth doing' kind of thing.

It's in Syria about now right?

Jesus right, it's doing its fucking job and /k/ is shitting on it.

File: 1450252222416.png (163B, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

163B, 250x250px

>>31914218
>Power Projection is an SJW term for offensive strikes against the small people that can't defend themselves

File: yak-44.jpg (107KB, 1000x483px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 1000x483px

>>31914580
You see this? This is a Yak-44. You can launch this type of plane from a ramp.

>>31916414

This thing never entered service.

>>31916982
Not an argument. You can launch this type of plane from a ramp.

>>31914502
More like Obi wat?

>>31910146
How do you start planes when the catapult is damaged?

File: ss (2015-07-15 at 04.24.16).png (91KB, 1043x1034px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 1043x1034px

>>31916396
>it's doing its fucking job and /k/ is shitting on it.

>>31917235
That`s normal for modern /k. It`s even funny to watch how desperate those retards can get.

nu-/k/ a shit

>>31916396

/k/ is just stating the fact that there are very few reasons to defend Russian military status after the soviet block fell.

Fighting some goatfuckers in the middle of desert can be done with a harrier planes that can go on carriers that are used by nations that can't even afford the ramp(those ships don't deserve the carrier name but looks good on a nations military to say that, ex; Spain, India...)

What most people compare on /k/ is a suposed battle between the first military on Earth and the second military on Earth(its more spectacular and glorious than the usual muslim pest control missions).

File: 1477643820613.jpg (1MB, 3671x2066px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3671x2066px

>>31909598
>there's nothing wrong with ramps
Good one.

>>31909598
>>31914218
"Different doctrine" was called admiral Gorshkov. He literally prohibited building carriers. They triggered him. Soviets sneaking carriers around him calling them cruisers and slapping ramp so they didn't looking like American ships. After death of this idiot soviets immediately laid down their first CATOBAR carrier.

>>31916414
>You can launch this type of plane from a ramp.
But you can't. initial Yak-44 was designed for CATOBAR carriers anon. But they was discorded and yak-44 as well. New requirements asked for launch from ramp what initial design couldn't do. Yakovlev tried to achieve such launch by slapping additional take of engines (idiots what i can say...) on Yak-44 but it failed.
Then they started another variant with conventional layout and refined aeroframe and engines but didn't went past mock-up stage in 1992 (what is on your pic).

So until dissolution of USSR in 1991 soviet aircraft carriers didn't get working fixed wing AWACS craft.

>>31918735
But you can, anon. The aircraft was stressed to allow catapult launching and arrested landings, but was also capable of operating from the ski-jump ramps of the Project 1143.5 carriers (later to become known as the Admiral Kuznetsov class).

>>31918862
>but was also capable of operating
You have problem with understanding written text. Read my post against and again until you could understand it.

>>31918896
Oh, the irony. Read my post again and again until you could understand the "capable of operating from the ski-jump ramps of the Project 1143.5 carriers" part.

File: 14776159817990.jpg (528KB, 1600x1026px) Image search: [Google]

528KB, 1600x1026px

Looks pretty good for the tasks at hand in Syria.

File: 14771677833880.jpg (731KB, 1247x1919px) Image search: [Google]

731KB, 1247x1919px

Sheeeit, you guys remember the Minsk? Now that was a fucking carrier

File: Kiev-class_Novorossiysk_DD-ST-85-06598_r[1].jpg (334KB, 1400x922px) Image search: [Google]

334KB, 1400x922px

>>31919383

The Kiev-class makes the Kuznetsov look like a work of art in comparison. The Kiev-class were basically helicopter carriers that were ashamed of what they were and piled on a lots of guns and missiles to try and hide it like an edgy teen. The Soviets should have made something like the Japanese Izumo-class for ASW instead of those mish-mash abominations.

>>31913289
holy fuck is that archival footage or is it hollywood movie?

File: russian navy planners.gif (1MB, 275x208px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 275x208px

>>31918862

if the russians had such a viable fixed wing AWACs plane capable of taking off from a ski-ramp why have they been operating with only AEW helos for the last 20 years?

if any other navy like the Royal Navy had found a way to operate proper AWACs off their ski-ramp carriers that shit would have been put into service ASAP regardless of cost

instead according to you the russians have forgotten more about ski-ramp carrier operations than any other nation as ever achieved

>>31919427

You have that backwards, the Kievs were missile cruisers that could launch and recover helicopters.

>>31919530
>holy fuck is that archival footage or is it hollywood movie?
American young people in a nutshell

File: 1143.5 admiral kuznetsov (3).jpg (384KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

384KB, 1920x1080px

>>31919531
Because they didn't have money to finish it in time and developing an aircraft just to produce two couples for a single carrier is not something even Americans with their enormous budget would normally do.
>if any other navy
As in Americans, who already operate CATOBAR and have no reason to develop such a thing.
>like the Royal Navy
Royal Navy is a shit shadow of its former self, I wouldn't expect much of them on the first place.
You can launch this type of plane from a ramp. Deal with it and move on.

>>31913378
>Su-33 full loadout
That's not Su-33 full loadout. That's normal combat loadout.

Why is it taking so long to get to Syria? Are they towing it there?

File: 14771574974042.jpg (172KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

172KB, 1024x768px

pretty /comfy/ tbqh

>>31919346

>Against ISIL and "other" terrorist groups.

I think that the person who wrote this got priorities backwards.

>>31919809

ISIS are still the favorite terrorist meme in the MSM, can't blame the guy for putting them there.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/05/uk-military-intelligence-issues-warning-over-russian-super-tank/
https://www.rt.com/uk/365555-armata-tank-uk-concerns/

File: 1424956730348.png (249KB, 358x358px) Image search: [Google]

249KB, 358x358px

>>31919694

but if it was in any way mature and viable abandoning it would be retarded beyond belief given the money sunk and the massive strategic importance

what a K-19 tier gaff if the Yak-44 could provably work off the Kuznetsov

>>31919829
>UK’s ability to combat the threat posed by the Kremlin’s new Armata tank.

I don't need to read the rest.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armata_Universal_Combat_Platform

>Units produced
>20.

If anybody thinks that the armata will reach the numbers of the t-72 or t-64 just because muh "Russia" he needs to seriosly check both the state of the Russian military and the crumbling economy.

The t-90, is around 3200 units(theorical units), and the the t-14 doubles the cost of the t-90, and they only have a few dozens around(wiki says 20 maybe more, but you get the idea)

>>31919895

When a country like UK is "threatened" by Russia, they are not talking about direct confrontation.

They're shitting their britches, because slavniggers are building better armor than the West, and slavniggers had a total collapse only 20 years ago.

Russians in the last 5 years showed off a new gen MBT, ebin cruise missiles that make the tomahawk look like shit, cheeki-breeki annexation ops, and more.

All this has massive implications for arms trade.

>>31919928
>new gen MBT

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

Unmanned turrets are stupid.

>>31919945

That's a great opinion you got there bud. Too bad that it's not an unmanned turret we're talking about, it's an unmanned turret on top of tank. Never mind the rumors about making remote controlled MBTs.

Tanks get shot up. I don't know why you insist of dying inside one, but more power to you.

>>31919974
How many Americans have died in tanks from enemy fire in the last 30 years?

>>31914218
Power projection is a modern way of saying gunboat diplomacy.

File: 14432731921100.jpg (24KB, 622x357px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 622x357px

>>31919998

How many Americans have fought against someone who's not a dirty sheepherder with an AK in the last 30 years?

>>31919346
>Fwo Ka-31Rs
>Fwo

>>31919928
>new gen MBT

Thats quite a statement.

Filling your tanks with reactive armor, moving the crew in "capsules" around the main body and making the turret unmaned seems like a good idea.

When your doctrine says that your tanks need heavy armor, will be near logistics lines and will mainly play in the defensive. Then you can take advantage of the increased survivavilty of the crew and the aditional armor(concentrated around the main body).

Russia is still living on the doctrines left by the rotten corpse of the soviet union(like the hybrid information/conventional war in Ukraine) so they created a tank that fitted more the western standards(hence why we already tested this exact concept in 1980).

There is always the posibility that we are witnessing a shift in doctriine, but with a crumbling and corrupt military it would be highly stupid until you get your shit together.

Instead we should have seen battle launched missiles, autoloader improvements and better engine efficiency, all of this around another t-72 chasis improvement or a similar model.

>>31920087

fighter jet radar and remote control capabilities do make it a next gen tank, whatever the drivel you manage to come up with in regards to russian doctrine.

why not design a carrier with a catapult and a deck that is angled upwards(at level sea)

>>31919895
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armata_Universal_Combat_Platform
>The Armata combat platform has been under design and development since 2009 by Uralvagonzavod headquartered in Nizhny Tagil.
it's not like they, or any other country, will develop and mass produce these things overnight, m8

>>31920056
Whatever number you come up with for that, it's going to be twice as many as Russia.

>>31920172
>it's not like they, or any other country, will develop and mass produce these things overnight, m8

The US could though, since the US usually gets involved in conflict overseas and can put industry on overdrive easily if it wants while being protected from strategic attacks.

Atomic warfare is on another level.

But the point is still there; Russia is in no state to deliver a sizeable ammount of t-14s in the near future and even in a few decades it should consider itself lucky if it achieves a thousand units since Russia is still falling down economically.

What's up with the Chinese Kutsnetzov not smoking like crazy?

>>31920261
New boilers.

>>31920288
And have they fixed the toilets too?

Just how much of their own shit did they put into it? It's not like you can randomly re build a large ship however you like.

File: 1327285160452.gif (2MB, 300x174px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 300x174px

>>31919346
>12 planes
>2 CAP/escort

>>31919669
Except for the part where his English is not American.

>>31920319
I don't know m8, I'm not that much into ships, especially Chinese.

>>31920147
Because dropping live ordinance on the deck is bad enough without worrying about it rolling down the deck afterwards. Also landing is already a nightmare without having to drop even lower to the deck AND hitting an incline that would cause even more stress on the airframe than conventional carrier landings.

>>31919893
More like regardless of how mature it is, not having money gives you exactly 0 (zero) options to chose from other than abandoning the project for the foreseeable future.

File: 14425638799162.jpg (88KB, 640x415px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 640x415px

so much fun posting

They need ramp, because it need to be able operate in arctic.

carrier that can't lauch its aircraft its just big shoebox

>>31909429
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=US9Moa3upTY

>>31920448
They were not design for Northern fleet in the beginning. This guy is right >>31918628
Soviet administration was just crazy.

>>31917144
How do you launch planes when the deck is damaged?

Anything which is going to damage a catapult will surely damage the deck of a ramp carrier.

>>31920608
damage on technical devices don't need to be caused by outer damage, you tool. Ivan will launch until his deck is gone, Jamal only as long as his steam pipes are tight.

>>31920657

Except steam catapults have been extremely reliable for the past 50 years.

>>31920657
>>31917144
>>31920670
Each catapult on the Nimitz class is its own system, there are enough redundancies that no single issue that would cause a single catapult to go down would cause all of them to go down without catastrophic structural damage to the carrier itself. They were specifically designed with that in mind because the guys that did the designing figured it would be pretty fucking dumb to have a carrier that got mission killed THAT easily.

>>31920670
>implying the Navy would allow the public to know how reliable the catapults are in reality

>>31920657
fires on carriers proofed, epe they will be turned into burning bath of oil by anything. Russian or American, ramp or catapult, if you being hit - you're not launching, you're fighting with fire.

>>31920754
Burgers will never learn that carrier are outdated, Ivan at least put missiles on his

>>31920775

A carrier is literally just a mobile air field. Carriers cannot be obsolete unless air fields are obsolete.

>>31920798
Air fields and carriers make nice big targets, and the perk of land based airfields is that they perform better against torpedos

Why would russians need carriers, they have land borders with every relevant country

>>31920823

And the negative of land-based airfields is that they can't fucking move, which makes them very easy targets for missiles. A carrier group is mobile and surrounded by AEGIS destroyers. No missile will get through.

File: Kraut space magic.jpg (35KB, 820x461px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 820x461px

>>31920854
You don't need missiles desu

File: 1477743736966.png (369KB, 1896x1700px) Image search: [Google]

369KB, 1896x1700px

>Russian Navy

>>31909711

That graph is noting the benefits of a Harrier, an aircraft with STOVL capabilities, not the positive aspects of a ramp.

File: IMG_2298.jpg (253KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

253KB, 1024x768px

>>31913484
Why not a carrier and a sub in one. The yuktobians did it

File: america is asshole.jpg (413KB, 1180x1736px) Image search: [Google]

413KB, 1180x1736px

>>31921010
>That graph is noting the benefits of a Harrier, an aircraft with STOVL capabilities, not the positive aspects of a ramp.
It's the harrier in both the top and bottom cases.

>>31919530
>did world war 2 really happen?

>>31920823

Which is why the USN is implementing a hard kill anti torpedo system for its carriers.

>>31919153
This shit from your pic is not capable to operate at all. This is non flying mock up and not a real plane.

>>31909931
Or you know.. a Brit?

>>31920425
>why are you trying to load the aircraft on the launch ramp?
>why would you put a launch ramp on the end of the angled landing strip?

Anything to discredit an idea eh?

>>31923210
It doesn't make the fact that you can launch this type of plane from a ramp any less true.